One moment that struck me in Lizabeth Cohen’s talk at the Miller Center was her three images of the pies and the different classes’ portions of it. The argument was that everyone can improve if the pie simply grows in size. Even if the percentage of the pie that the upper class received was slightly smaller, they would still be better off because the pie doubled in size. This policy was espoused by the government and there seemed to be a movement towards equality. In her article, Cohen states that “between 1941 and 1944, family income rose by over 24 per cent in constant dollars, with the lowest fifth gaining three times more than the highest fifth, essentially doubling the size of the middle class” (p210). Everyone clearly benefited. Indeed, the so-called Consumer’s Republic “stood for an elaborate ideal of economic abundance and democratic political freedom, both equitably distributed” (p214) and lasted from the 1940s until the 1970s. The United States was extremely prosperous during this period and there was tremendous growth.
Reading about this time period made me think of an editorial by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. In it, he describes how the “richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income” which is a rather striking amount. What makes it especially alarming is that it is “up from almost 9 percent in 1976”. In fact, “from 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.” We have therefore been moving towards a more unequal society for quite some time. I would argue that the results have not necessarily been positive especially in this recession (though perhaps my viewpoint has been affected by the incredibly depressing Peck article. I particularly like how Peck ends the article by pointing out some possible positive outcomes before crushing them and basically saying that nothing good will come of this recession).
This inequality does matter as it affects the economy but more importantly to this class, it would affect government attentiveness and responsiveness. The Bartels article describes how the government is much more likely to listen to the high income voters than low income voters. If we are concentrating wealth into the hands of a few, then presumably fewer people will have a voice in the government. I imagine that the one percent that controls 24 percent of the income would have some extra money to donate to campaigns and influence politics. Regardless, if wealth is more evenly distributed, then politicians will be forced to listen to all people, or at least a larger percentage. I think this is much healthier for a democracy and ultimately leads to better policies and results. However, it does not seem likely that there will be a change to this income inequality in the near future; simply look at the huge Wall Street profits or the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1 percent. Still, it might be a good idea to think about how to narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest citizens.
I agree with you Ned, it seems that we have to narrow the gap between the poorest and the richest citizens in order that everyone could "equally" participate to democracy. I was thinking about ideas to do that, but it seems that we are in a vicious circle : I think that only the government can find solutions to narrow this gap -for example with less tax cuts as you mentioned. But as we realized in the readings, the voice of the poorest citizens is not heard by the Senators. So it seems that the citizens have first to become rich enough to receive government attentiveness and change in the tax policy... I don't know how we can begin to narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest citizens !
ReplyDelete